1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to fishing equipment and more particularly with a visual means by which the angler can detect bites or strikes to the baited hook attached to the fishing line.
2. Description of Prior Art
It has long been recognized that detecting bites or strikes to the baited hook will aid the angler in catching more fish. Accordingly, it has been the objective of prior art to provide such bite detection. In prior art there have been many and varied approaches to accomplishing this objective. Most have several, if not many, disadvantages or short-comings. These disadvantages include size, weight, complexity, awkwardness, cost, and a general failure of the device to perform as desired.
In U.S. Pat. No. 3,962,812 issued to Means et al (1976) a balance beam arrangement has been employed. A major drawback of this device is that the fishing rod must be modified in order to employ the adapter used to attach it to the fishing rod. Such modification is destructive to a portion of the fishing rod and renders said fishing rod useless in other fishing situations. Furthermore, casting cannot be accomplished with this device in place.
In U.S. Pat. No. 4,380,883 issued to Greaux (1983) the disclosed invention use a bell as a means of signaling the bite or strike. This arrangement has several drawbacks. The first and foremost deals with sound transmission. It is a known law of physics that sound transmission is many times greater in water than in air. As a fish tugs on the bait the fishing line is caused to become taut thereby causing the bell to ring. As such sound is transmitted through the air it is simultaneously transmitted down the fishing line into the water. Such unnatural sounds and vibrations perceived by the fish, which may not as yet be hooked, frequently causes said fish to become spooked and vacate the vicinity.
Yet another drawback of this device lies in the fact that the angler must hear the bell ringing to become alerted to the bites. Since the bell used in this invention is quite small there is the potential that the angler will not hear the bell over the background noise in many fishing situations.
In U.S. Pat. No. 5,115,590 issued to Larson (1992) disclosed is a device designed to be used on an rigid, ice fishing rod. This device employs still another version of the balance beam arrangement. There are two main drawbacks associated with this particular invention. First, it is designed to be used solely on a rigid, ice fishing rod. It is not designed to be used on a conventional, flexible fishing rod. Second, this device is very sensitive. While sensitivity in itself is not a negative feature, considering the basic design of this invention, it has the effect of being somewhat difficult to set. Given just a little wind or surface disturbance on the water and the angler could become quite frustrated in his attempts to properly adjust this device.
The invention disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,077,928 issued to Deskevich (1992) employs a small body of material which resembles a bead or small section of tube through which the fishing line is passed. This arrangement discloses an improvement over much of the prior art. However, the invention relies upon observing movement of said body of material, while suspended from the fishing line, for bite indications. Since there is no datum or point of reference, small movements or changes in position can go undetected. A further drawback of this invention is that the fishing line must be passed through the device in order to utilize it. If the angler wishes to it to employ the device on a different rod, the rod must be unstrung in order to remove it. This would require the angler to remove all terminal tackle first. This can be a time consuming and undesirable feature of this invention.
Similarly, U.S. Pat. No. 4,038,772 issued to Mih aly et al (1977) employs a pivoting tube through which the fishing line must be passed. In this case, however, the tube is of much greater size and appears to be somewhat obtrusive. Furthermore, the same drawback, for detecting movement of the device, is present in this invention as noted in U.S. Pat. No. 5,077,928 issued to Deskevich (1992). Another drawback of this invention contemplates a permanent attachment to the fishing rod. Still another drawback of this invention contemplates the angler making mental calculations with respect to angular momentum and mass verses inertia.
In U.S. Pat. No. 4,146,988 issued to Bednarczyk (1979) disclosed is a variation of the balance beam arrangement. This device uses a pivotal arm to indicate a bite. This is merely an improvement over prior art utilizing previously known tip-up technology. The device is designed to be attached to the fishing rod at the handle. It appears that this device is designed to be used on a fishing rod using a spinning reel only. It does not appear to be useful on other types of fishing rods, such as bait casting or closed face spin cast reels.
Casting, when using a spinning reel, is accomplished by gripping the fishing rod handle with the second and third fingers straddling the reel-mount support arm with the index finger retaining the fishing line. Considering this arrangement, this device can be seen to create something of a nuisance during casting and retrieving.
Another drawback of this invention is that the location of the device during normal usage, that is, attached to the fishing rod handle. After casting, the fishing rod is typically placed in a rod holder or support. Many of such rod holders would preclude the usage of this device since they are tubular in design. This type of rod holder is used by sliding the fishing rod handle into a tube attached to a sand spike or other such arrangement. Clearly this would confine the tip-up flag of this device preventing it from functioning.
Finally, we come to a device disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,766,688 issued to Hiles (1988). In this device electronics are employed to detect and signal a bite. There are a number of drawbacks associated with using electronics in bite indicators.
The first, of course, is the fact that electronic devices can fail due to moisture, condensation, corrosion, and the natural degradation of its components. Second, the means for detection of bites involves either lights or audible alarms. Lights are virtually useless during normal daylight hours since the ambient light would likely overwhelm such indications. Lights are useful for night fishing, however.
Audible alarms, as previously mentioned, transmit the waves of unnatural sounds down the taut fishing line into the water thereby frightening the fish. Also, as previously mentioned, audible alarms can go undetected since background noise in many fishing locations could muffle the sound.
Another drawback of using electronic is the relatively higher cost in manufacturing and therefore, in the cost to the consumer. Finally, this device relies upon a very critical angle to insure proper operation. A mercury switch is mounted on a circuit board at a 45 degree angle to compensate for an anticipated angle at which the fishing rod will be placed to rest after casting. Misjudging this angle, even by a small degree, can affect the operation and sensitivity of the device, thereby limiting its effectiveness. Furthermore, mercury is highly toxic and is undesirable in proximity of reservoirs used for drinking water supplies.